Of course "time travel" into the 'future' is trivial. Every atom on the planet is doing it every second of every day.

No, your wrong. As far as I'm concerned I always live in the present. I cannot jump into my own future. And a second isn't really a second. It is indefinable in it own right. Time is relative right? That's all they tell you. They don't tell you what time IS, because they don't know. If you know what it is, you better tell them now. They've been trying to find the answer since the beginning of time.

Since the beginning of what?

No one said anything about the special case of jumping into your "own" future nor, btw, did I say anything about 'jumping'.

What you call the "present" is tomorrow's past and yesterday's future. As I said, assuming you existed yesterday, you've traveled from yesterday into the future of "now" and you'll continue traveling into the future of tomorrow, assuming you don't die first. As long as you stay in normal spacetime, and we currently don't know of a way to avoid that, you can't help but travel into the future. That's life (actually, all of existence). As I said, if you want to travel 'faster' into the future you need relativistic speeds, but that's simply a matter of technology.

Yes, time is relative but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Using that kind of scrambled logic NOTHING exists because spatial dimensions are just as subject to relativity as time is.

What you probably heard about "time" being an 'illusion' is that rather than 'space' and 'time' being separate entities, which expand and contract per relativity, they're, at least mathematically, dimensions of a 4 dimensional geometry. They're trying to impress upon you that "causality" is what's 'real' and, so, space and time as separate entities is an illusion. But that shouldn't be taken to mean space and time "don't exist." In fact, all 4 axes of the 4 dimensional geometry have the same 'label' with one of them being time. The two geometries are simply transformations of each other and you get the same results either way. All things inexorably move forward in time.

Consider this; if one were alone on an island, with no clock, calendar, or access to communications of any sort, but did have food, water and shelter, then they could survive, but their only measurement of the concept of time passing would be to count the sunrises, at least at the beginning. Given enough of them, that would eventually pass. They would naturally age, but the concept of time would have nothing to do with it. It is simply a man-made measure.

_________________\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\He Who Dies With The Most Radios Wins//////////////////

Then how do you explain Mr. Peabody and Sherman's wayback machine??????

Exactly. Time travel is no problem in fiction. Why do you have to change it to something else? You don't need to duplicate mass at some time in the past. All you need is the image of yourself in the past. Or the future, for that matter. Not a pun.

Video cameras with recordable media are one example. You are capturing something that will never exist precisely as it was ever again. Of course, the BANDWIDTH is extremely narrow relative to a capture of the entire world, but it is faithful, and solves the problems of meeting yourself or altering the future by changing the past.

Now, imagine an enormous 3D camera that captures the goings-on of everything and everyone over a huge geographic area. The data from the camera would be loaded into a holodeck and one could go back to any point in time that the camera has already captured and truly experience what it was like. At the rate our technology is going, such a thing will probably be possible in the next 100 years.

Consider this; if one were alone on an island, with no clock, calendar, or access to communications of any sort, but did have food, water and shelter, then they could survive, but their only measurement of the concept of time passing would be to count the sunrises, at least at the beginning. Given enough of them, that would eventually pass. They would naturally age, but the concept of time would have nothing to do with it. It is simply a man-made measure.

Of course time exists in 'nature' and the fact that you admit they "naturally age" is proof of it. It's the UNIT of measure that's 'man-made', just like you can measure distance in meters, miles, or furlongs per fortnight. The units are arbitrary but the actual distance is not.

From the big bang, to star formation and galaxies, to the birth of life, to man, I.e. all of existence, time has and doe exist whether you (mankind) have any concept of it or not.

Consider this; if one were alone on an island, with no clock, calendar, or access to communications of any sort, but did have food, water and shelter, then they could survive, but their only measurement of the concept of time passing would be to count the sunrises, at least at the beginning. Given enough of them, that would eventually pass. They would naturally age, but the concept of time would have nothing to do with it. It is simply a man-made measure.

Of course time exists in 'nature' and the fact that you admit they "naturally age" is proof of it. It's the UNIT of measure that's 'man-made', just like you can measure distance in meters, miles, or furlongs per fortnight. The units are arbitrary but the actual distance is not.

From the big bang, to star formation and galaxies, to the birth of life, to man, I.e. all of existence, time has and doe exist whether you (mankind) have any concept of it or not.

Exactly how does naturally aging exhibit any proof of "time" passing? It's a man made concept, and as you said, developed in order to measure, just as a ruler or a tape rule measures linear distance.

But that doesn't establish it as a natural occurring phenom, like energy and mass, which are the only true naturally occurring entities.

_________________\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\He Who Dies With The Most Radios Wins//////////////////